The Truth.

Background:
I begin with a brief history of what has occurred over the past few years. In 1995, Smart Parts releases the first electronic paintball marker, the pneuVentures Shocker. This gun was designed jointly by both SP and pVI, and Smart Parts also manufactured a few parts for it. In 1996, Smart Parts patents the dump-chamber and it's interaction with the specific type of hammer-less firing assembly that the Shocker employs. Later, in 2003, Smart Parts performs a continuation-in-part operation to their original patent, which expands it to include any electronic marker. The definition of this marker is one that uses an electronic circuit to fire, so any marker is included. In the meantime, companies such as WDP, Brass Eagle, ICD, NPS, AKALMP, and others bring a large spectrum of electronic markers to the market. WDP came in a close second, however Smart Parts beat them and claimed the patent on it.

Some say that Smart Parts' master plan for market domination was to lie in wait until circca 2003, at which point their continuation-in-part of the electronic marker would take effect. They would have simply allowed the rest of the market to build up their inventory of markers only to be all covered under the patent continuation in one fell swoop, and thus everyone would all owe Smart Parts money. There is absolutely no evidence toward this theory; it is complete speculation. Actually, I will go the necessary step further and say it is more likely those who are pissed at them are making up outlandish ties to the company being a villainous entity bent on destroying the market. I believe it is more likely that they simply realized that they could expand their patent, then choose to do so. Remember, there is no reason why this would be illegal, as they do own the rights to the first electronic marker. They did, in fact, bring electronics to the market. Whichever story you choose to believe is up to you.

Patents:

So this is how it goes: when you are the first to invent something, or in this case simply release it to the public, you can use the patent system to prevent others from making profit on your design. It doesn't necessarially matter if you're dealing with an entirely new product or simply a concept, it's all fair game. Whether or not patenting the electronic marker is too wide and thus should be illegal is nothing but somebody's opinion. Some say it is too wide; personally I don't think it is. I think anything can be patented. Yes, I will probably end up paying more for the product...sucks for me. I could care less.

Don't quote to me that tired speech of Doc Nickel's about people such as Bob Gurnsey who didn't patent paintball becuase they wanted to sport to grow, Give me a break. It is entirely possible that the only thing that prevented him from applying for any patents is simply the fact that it costs thousands of dollars to do. What, did you call him up on the telephone and ask him yourself? That's right, you don't know, nether do I. But even then, how was he to know what the sport would turn into 15 years down the road. Sorry, but the pin valve is patented. Sorry, but the stacked open bolt blow back is patented. Stop villianizing people based from your worst case scenarios.

Fortunately for anyone who is knows, having a patent on something is completely different from having a monopoly over the industry. Moreover, even if every single solitary company paid Smart Parts royalities for their patents, it still wouldn't be a monopoly. Don't go around saying there's a monopoly when you don't even understand what that means.

Royalities:
Do some searching and take a look at how many paintball-related patents there are. The answer is hundreds. Hundreds upon hundreds. From definate things like a specific type of regulator, all the way up to the use of a paintball bunker. I will take the barrel plug for example...yes, the barrel plug is patented. Although Bud Orr supposidely invented the first barrel plug, it was not he who claims the rights to it. Surprised that such a simple item is patented? Don't be. To think that anything goes unnoticed in this world is an extremely neive point of view to take. Businessmen aren't in it to invent something then leave it lying around for the next oppertunitistic fellow to come along and claim the rights to it. Sorry, not in this world.

Although it is unrelated, I hold in my hand a simple phillips-head screwdriver. On one side it reads the model name, and on the other we find a six-digit US patent number, 201171. The fact that it has six digits places it well before the 1940s. I am unable to find any information on any patent this old, so who konws what it covers. It could even be something as defined as the square shape of the handle. If that was the case, everyone else who uses a similar square-shaped handle gives this company royalities. This is the nature of the economy; if you don't like it then too bad. It is not something that anyone can control, even if anyone wanted to. When you patent something, you are required by law to sue possible infringements on it. If you fail to do so, you will loose the patent. It is for this reason and NO OTHER that what Smart Parts does is well within their bounds of not only legality, but ethics as well. Patenting some broad inventoin isn't unethical. It may be to you, but how many multimillion dollar businesses do you own? Ever think there is a reason why you don't own one?

But even if it was, so what? Companies that fail to patent their inventions will loose money as a direct result, and possibly pass money on over to the next company, one who ends up receiving royalities from you because of one of your inventions. To think of the utter overwhelming competation in the industry if nobody patented what they did, sickens me. It would be a world filled with hundreds upon hundreds of identical inventions at the bare minimum price. There would be no single superior product because somebody could outright copy it, if nobody was there to ***** about how "broad" the patent for it was.

Want another example? AKALMP has a patent for their Mitey max low pressure chamber...to make a long story short, Shocktech stopped production of their own LPCs because they fell under AKA's patent. Shame. Another good example would be AKALMP's patent for their Tornade valve, which effectively places all hammer-based valves under it. How many other guns use a hammer? Every single open bolt blow back, and the vast majority of other paintball markers as well. Whether or not this is the actual embodiment is open to interpertation.

Unfortunately this is the way it is, there is no alternative. You can't pick and choose what is too broad and what isn't. In doing so you are not only calling the patent commission wrong, but there would be nothing to stop the next guy from saying you were wrong and attempting to reinstate the claims. This follows up to the fact that, if Smart Parts hadn't patented what they did, then WDP would have. If they hadn't, then Brass Eagle would have. This company would then be in the exact same position as Smart Parts, that is being required to sue other companies lest they loose their rights to the patent. Then people would get angered at them for trying to prevent the industry from growing or some other bull****, and nobody would give Smart Parts a second look.

Smart Parts Prevents Industry Growth:
This is one of the common phrases that the kids spout in effort to villianize Smart Parts. If you are one who believes in this phrase, I emplore you to take a step back and actually consider what it means instead of parroting the person in front of you. The only thing that stops growing as a result of Smart Parts are those which are directly affected by them. But just because they receive royalities from a product does not mean anything will stop growing. Instead, the consumer of said product will see an increase in cost. If you wish to tote about in some dream world and think prices of paintball equipment will stay the same indefinately, you're wrong. But high prices do not equal no growth.

Which also brings me to the point of the many competing manufacturers who have signed with Smart Parts. These include NPS (includes the Bob Long series of markers), Dye, and Eclipse. It is very likely that there are others as well, and that they simply choose to keep their legal interactions out of the public eye. So tell me, how does this stop anything from NPS from growing? How does this prevent RP Sherer from growing? More to the point, how does this stop Smart Parts from growing? Give me a break. At least if you don't like the company you can come out and say it, that you don't like to pay more (whether or not you actually do end up paying more). But don't make up pointless phrases like they "stop the sport from growing," when you don't even understand what it means yourself.

Smart Parts are Nazis:
I have absolutely no respect for anyone who says this. It is not funny nor is it clever. If you spout this phrase then you simply don't understand what a Nazi is, or what they did to over 200 million people half a century ago. Nothing else to say about this.

Personally, I don't necessarially like that everything in this world has a patent behind it, but I understnad the consequences of the alternatives. I use Smart Parts guns, barrels, and accessories because I don't have problems with them. I also know how to service them. Nothing more. The day Smart Parts is responsible for preventing me from playing paintball is the day I stop supporting them.

SP didn't bring electronics to the market, PVI did, they held the first patent which was bought in a hostile takeover move by SP. PVI produces shocker, SP markets it, PVI is taken over by SP, PVI name crumbles, SP takes the patent and frolics off to produce under spec poor quality markers. and yes you cannot deny they are underspec for the price.

__________________
looking for ebladed/raced cockers and LCD and IR3 Angels for a trade....

Smart Parts and pVI both designed the Shocker. Although pneuVentures did produce most of the parts for it, Smart Parts also manufactured several key pieces of the gun and regulator, and they made the barrel of course.
Smart Parts had a merchandising contract with pneuVentures. In 1997 they begun to disagree and SP backed out of it. This is all that occured; nothing more. Sometime after, pVI went under. Sorry, but Smart Parts did not buy them out or anything else dramatic and/or villianous.
It was both Smart Parts and pneuVentures that applied for the patent of the gun in 1996...who do you expect should end up with the rights to it if half of the owners suddenly don't own a company anymore?

As told by Stobaeus...someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said "Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns".

Gibson i would like to thank you for explaining to me exactly what happened. I feel like u have really done something good. I now know why some ignorant kid is pissing and moaning. thank you for the great explanation.

Thank Ydna for the article, not me, i just edited it to fit the post, i HIGHLY reccomend you go read the entire article, glad you love your imp. My friend shoots a strange and i love that gun. I also love my 03 Shocker.

You just happened to leave out the part about internet discussion groups outlining the concept a year or two before SP.

And invention and "bringing to market" are two separate items.

You also have a slightly wrong concept concerning patents in general. One is, just because you have a patent doesn't mean you have the right to anything. Barrel plugs may be patented, but no one is receiving money for them. Just because someone holds the patent.... let's see them try to enforce it. They can't because there is prior art.

You also miss the point of Doc's article... he doesn't deny patents, he simply points out that they are not being enforced.

It's alright if you want to summarize stuff, but please don't expect everyone to agree on things that are opinion and not fact.

[edit]Sorry, after reading through the article, you've got some other problems there. You do NOT have to sue every violator of a patent. You're thinking of trademarks, and the rules there are different. Patents are valid regardless of if you enforce them or not. You can selectively choose who to enforce the patent on. It states it quite clearly in all patent literature that the owner "may" sue, but they don't have to.[/edit]

Oh come on, I don't expect everyone to agree. I am here to point out the facts. If you wish to cite examples, then feel free to do so.

In this case there is no difference between bringing to the market and inventing something, so long as there isn't prior art. These are legal interactions that nobody knows about. I don't know what prior art there is for a given item, neither do you.

My point about the other patents, such as those for barrel plugs, is that they very well may be lawsuits for them and we have absolutely no idea because the companies keep it out of the public like they should. We have no idea what goes on. CVould be lots, could be nothing, but there's no reason to assume anything short of the fastest way to get your moneys worth.

You misunderstand my speakings of the patent laws. I meant the concept of loosing the patent if more than one party claims it, which is clearly evident in many applications. I believe I will go back and reword that part since I can see where you got that idea from.

As told by Stobaeus...someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said "Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns".

Originally posted by Ydna Oh come on, I don't expect everyone to agree. I am here to point out the facts. If you wish to cite examples, then feel free to do so.

I'm simply pointing out that not all of the "facts" are correct.

In this case there is no difference between bringing to the market and inventing something, so long as there isn't prior art. These are legal interactions that nobody knows about. I don't know what prior art there is for a given item, neither do you.

There is most certainly a difference in inventing something and bringing it to market. Just because SP sold something doesn't mean they should hold the rights to the idea. For instance, you point out the lack of similarities between the Navy patent and the shocker, however there is just as much similarity there as there is between the shocker and a bushmaster. It's a paintball firing device that uses a firing solenoid, an infrared transmitter to detect the presence of a loaded projectile, and uses electronic methods to fire. You can be as vague as you want about prior art, but that's no broader of claims than SP's claim of electronics in paintball markers. So yes, possibly we DO know something about what prior art exists. Not to mention the public discussions of the concept, which is one of the MAIN problems of the patent. Public knowledge and obvious implementation of technology aren't supposed to be cadidates for patenting.

My point about the other patents, such as those for barrel plugs, is that they very well may be lawsuits for them and we have absolutely no idea because the companies keep it out of the public like they should. We have no idea what goes on. CVould be lots, could be nothing, but there's no reason to assume anything short of the fastest way to get your moneys worth.

You misunderstand my speakings of the patent laws. I meant the concept of loosing the patent if more than one party claims it, which is clearly evident in many applications. I believe I will go back and reword that part since I can see where you got that idea from.

The law states that you have to file for a patent within one year of it's public release. It doesn't say anything about enforcement.

Open up a copy of West's Business Law and flip through the intellectual property section sometime. It'll help narrow down the focus.

Well Smart Parts owns the patent on the Shocker because they designed it. They've always held the patent on it, except it was also owned by two people from pVI until 1999.

The reason the US Navy patent dosen't cover and other guns is because they don't use the same weel mechanism. Please follow the link Gibson provided at the bottom of his post if you haven't yet. This patent is too specific. It doesn't cover just any gun with a solenoid, it clearly states the conection with the weel.
The flip side is the Smart Parts patent which doesn't make any specific refrences. They patent the use of the circuit, which is broad enough to include much more than their items, as you know.

You've heard about this recent WDP/SP thing, yes? Have you read the first patent that WDP claims they are infringing? It's about the LCD/LED capability, the menu system, and some others. But it also puts a notion toward holding rights to guns using buttons to change settings and other broad things that other companies may have.

I don't need to read up any more on the subject. I am quite familiar with it. I am not sure why you assume otherwise.

As told by Stobaeus...someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said "Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns".

It isn't a matter of how specific the patent is. Prior art isn't defined as a technology that is specifically patented. Prior art is simply proof that a technology was invented PRIOR to the patent's application. The point is, SP owns a patent over technology that they did not invent. Period. They weren't the first to do it.

The navy patent shows that electronics were used to operate a paintball firing device PRIOR to the invention of the shocker by PVI and SP. It's not about has this been patented... prior art is just that, prior art. It doesn't even have to come from a patent, and published and public document or record is viable as prior art.

Yes I know, that isn't what I am saying. It is for the reason of the Military's patent that I am lead to consider there are things that, again, we don't know about.

I mean, why the hell would anybody grant the claims to SP in the first place? Further, why are they still present? It isn't as if the prior patent is going anywhere; it hasn't been recinded or anything...just seems interesting to me how things are.

As told by Stobaeus...someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said "Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns".

dunno, same reason someone has a patent on the barrel plug years after it was invented. It hasn't been tried in court yet, so who knows. Unfortunately the patent office is underfunded and the staff is overworked. Slipups happen, especially if you know how to work the system. There are patents for all kinds of things that have already been invented, but that doesn't make them valid. Does SP have the patent, yes. Should they, I don't think so. Will it stand up in court, we don't know yet.

Well the barrel plug isn't really a good example considering it's pretty much the simplest line of safety besides the marker's actual trigger safety switch, but if I'm not mistaken Mr. Orr is generally given credit toward its invention. But I don't know where you'd find any prior art for something this simple....

EDIT: One thing I fogot, I would also put forth that the subject of prior art in this situation is more subject to interpretation then what I have been saying. As in, it is obvious that SP did not use the device first, but this being irrevelant to the patent for it. If you patented using four legs in a chair I could still patent something related, so long as it isn't the same thing.

As told by Stobaeus...someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said "Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns".

The Shocker Sport was inefficienct due to the outright length of the air transfer ports. But a properly equipped Shocker 03 or Imp will give you much over the average efficiencies.
Alternately the reason why the AKALMP markers are so efficienct is the near lack of air transfer ports. The gun is designed in such a way so that it is only a matter of holes between the compartments (with a few exceptions of course).

As told by Stobaeus...someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said "Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns".

I've gotten 1600-1700 shots off a 68/45 fill on a properly tuned impulse, although not the best efficiency ever reported still extremely high. The original inefficiency of the 03 shocker has nothing to do with the air passageways, it had to do with the dump chamber not sealing during the firing sequence, causing air to leak down the barrel even after the ball has been fired, until the dwell expired.